1. That is

scary!!!

Obama also offered a glimpse of how he would govern in a second term of divided government, insisting rosily that the forces of the election would help break Washington's stalemate. He said he would be willing to make a range of compromises with Republicans, confident there are some who would rather make deals than remain part of "one of the least productive Congresses in American history."

2. You'll have four more years to hate on him, Manny, don't worry.

5. Address the OP.

Do you think that compromising with republicans on things that will anger liberal Democrats is a good thing? What compromises do you favor - cutting SS? limiting right to choose? warrantless wiretapping?

Just need to know what liberal causes you think are unimportant. Then we can discuss them. Other than that, you just agree with the OP by not addressing it.

10. So many straw men, so little time.

You do realize that almost every piece of legislation written in this country is a compromise of some sort, right?

Even in the Sixties, with a numerical majority in both legislative houses and a Democratic president, there were still compromises made within the factions of the party itself to pass legislation.

You knew that, right? It's part of the history of this nation.

Let me know which program you want to see fail first, because in a divided government, either you do nothing and watch it all fail (which is the Teabagger tactic, standing on their principals, but, by golly, they aren't compromising!) or you work towards a solution.

15. Which compromises would you like to start with? nt

32. How about this compromise: We'll tax the rich at a higher rate in order to fund SS & Medicare and

in return they (GOP) agree to ending tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs. And if they DO choose to compromise, the President will promise to NOT go on TV and tell the entire Nation that the Republicans are supporting giving tax breaks to corporations that outsource jobs.

66. So much evasion. So little said.

And I do think that DU needs to make a sticky with the definition of straw man. It would help if posters would check it first.

Now before started your pointless post, did you consider addressing my questions? You know, things that would address the OP contribute to a discussion.

I don't think SS should be cut back. I don't think we should compromise on a woman's right to choose. I don't think that we should have warrantless invasion of our privacy or detention without trial. I don't think gay couples should be kept from marrying. I don't agree that corporations have the same rights as people or that their interests should be put ahead of people. I don't think that the rich who have benefitted most from our country's bounty should pay less than those who create that bounty.

See? It's not hard. Just tell me which of these you don't think are important enough to safeguard. I told you what I think is important. Now you tell me what you think is not. (Or you could just apologize for jumping in without contributing.)

See. I made choices. You don't seem to be able to do so. You seem to be saying that because the tea baggers won't compromise, we have to drift over to their side. So by standing their ground, they get us to move more and more to the right. But you say if we stand out ground, we will lose everything - oh my. The sky is falling.

Well, I don't agree that we have to give up our rights and principles. You say we have no choice but to do so. So just tell us which rights and principles are less important for you.

107. Listen to what he said. Not your knee jerk

reaction to the name of the OP.

Think for a change. Before genuflecting that knee into your face.

You still can't come up with the types of republican cooperation that you favor. I can list what I believe is important. Why can't you list what you believe isn't? Is it because you didn't really have anything to add to the OP other than a patented drive by at the name.

Now if you are a reagan Democrat who thinks the party was way too liberal and needs to be reined into a more conservative place, you ought to be willing to say so. I don't think the party should drift right. I don't think compromise is a good thing if the only way you know how to do it is to give away your principles to the other side. I think the other side is bad.

What ideas do they have that you think would be good for the Democrats to move towards?

Can you answer any questions about your position? Do you have one other than on your knees?

3. Let's start with ending the government's attack upon the legal finding that section 1021 of the NDAA

is illegal. There are plenty of better things for the government to do than fight for the provision to indefinitely detain US citizens.

"Obama Defies Federal Court Ban On NDAA Indefinite Detention"

Obama is refusing to follow a federal court order that found the NDAA violates the Constitution and temporarily banned indefinite detention of U.S citizens.

The Obama administration is refusing to follow the order of a Federal District Court Judge Katherine Forrest who last month temporarily blocked the government from detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge as authorized by section 1021 of the NDAA in a ruling that declared the NDAA unconstitutional.

The Obama administration first responded to the ban on indefinite detention by asking the courts to lift the injunction.

28. "I'll be glad after 2016 when he just fades away into the fog from whence he came."

42. I know Obama isn't perfect,

but seriously, what did he do that made you "not stand the guy"?
Under him, we've seen at least 25 straight months of private sector job growth, he ended the Iraq War and is drawing down our presence in Afghanistan, he repealed DADT, and he bailed out the auto industry. And there is a lot more on his official list of accomplishments:
http://obamaachievements.org/list

Despite constant G0P obstructionism, it looks like he accomplished quite a bit. Our employment rate would probably be even lower, too, if Congress had agreed to pass his Jobs Bill.

23. Video of what Pres Obama actually said in context is in comment #20 n/t

9. Fuller context -

In an interview with The Associated Press, Obama said Romney lacks serious ideas, refuses to "own up" to the responsibilities of what it takes to be president, and deals in factually dishonest arguments that could soon haunt him in face-to-face debates.

He said he would be willing to make a range of compromises with Republicans, confident there are some who would rather make deals than remain part of "one of the least productive Congresses in American history."

Making "deals" is an integral part of effective governing. You have to deal with the other party in Congress to get anything done. Simplistic, mindless stonewalling, as the Republicans have resolutely practiced recently, is crippling. Compromise isn't always anathema to a liberal agenda. The devil of course is in the details, but compromise in and of itself isn't failure.

LBJ is probably the best example of a Democratic deal maker in recent times, particularly on social issues. A long term veteran of Congressional maneuvering, he was more adept at the game than Obama at this point in Presidential time. I'm more than willing to vote for another Obama term.

31. You

"The FDIC is now on the hook for trillions in derivative bets. It does virtually nothing. "

...don't really know what's in the law do you?

In addition to the legal proceedings, Bair has made the following remark, which spoke to the FDIC’s lack of statutory authority pre Dodd-Frank. In a response to the Inspector General for the TARP program, Bair remarked, "We were told by the New York Fed that problems would occur in the global markets if Citi were to fail. We didn't have our own information to verify this statement, so I didn't want to dispute that with them." In 2008, the FDIC did not have the legal authority to put large holding companies into its bank receivership process and little authority to access information outside of the insured institutions. Since these were holding companies, and not banks, the FDIC had to rely on information from other regulators. That is no longer the case. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, expressly prohibiting bank bailouts by extending the FDIC’s resolution authority to close the largest financial firms and make their shareholders and creditors bear the losses without creating a systemic disruption. Dodd-Frank also gave the FDIC new authority to directly access information from large bank holding companies which are not in sound condition.13]

Ends Too Big to Fail Bailouts: Ends the possibility that taxpayers will be asked to write a check to bail out financial firms that threaten the economy by: creating a safe way to liquidate failed financial firms; imposing tough new capital and leverage requirements that make it undesirable to get too big; updating the Fed’s authority to allow system-wide support but no longer prop up individual firms; and establishing rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses.

117. You don't know Bank of America, do you?

The previous poster was referring to BofA shifting $75ish trillion of derivatives to its FDIC-insured subsidiary last fall. Bernanke backed BofA getting a $1 trillion blank check (the amount of insured deposits in the sub) and the FDIC lost that fight.

The fact that Citibank is still alive undercuts your argument on the expanded powers of the FDIC. It doesn't matter what it says on paper, it matters that the guy in charge makes use of the tools available. As Citibank's continued existence shows, somebody ain't interested in remedying bad banks.

33. As for this:

"Given that the CFPB and health insurance reform are compromises with Republicans... how many Republicans voted for these?"

Republicans, including Mitt, want to repeal all of it. In fact, they're trying to defund the CFPB.

CFPB & PPACA Pay Off for Americans' Wallets, Obama's Resumé

by hungeski

Two well-known acts of the Democratic-majority Congress of 2009-2010 have begun to pay off – literally – for Americans. One is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB sets and enforces standards for bank dealings with customers. Last month, the CFPB issued its first enforcement order, following a probe of Capital One Financial Corporation. Capital One was misleading and pressuring customers to buy "payment protection" or "credit monitoring," when one would call in to activate one's credit card. Under the order, the bank will give each swindled customer a full refund, with interest, automatically – no claim form needed. That adds up to about $140M for about 2 million customers. Also, Capital One will pay $25M in fines to the CFPB, and an additional $45M, including restitution for unfair billing practices, levied by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The other well-known act of Congress that is putting money back in Americans' wallets is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as "Obamacare", which has set standards for medical insurance. One of those standards is that a medical insurance company pay out 80% (85% for large employer plans) of the premiums it gets for actual health care, not administrative costs and profits. Over the past month or two, about 12.8 million customers have been getting $1.1B in rebates, automatically, from insurance companies that had a shortfall in actual health care spending last year. Neither of these acts would have passed without push from President Obama, so these fair payments to Americans add two bullet points to the president's re-election resumé. By contrast, Mitt Romney, Obama's opponent in the presidential race, has said that he would repeal both the CFPB and the PPACA.

37. In the end, it never is. n/t

38. I think it is similar to LBJ's America, but more so if that makes sense. We're extremely divided,

the stakes are high and the opportunities for real progress call for some deals to be made.

Health care - continue to expand access and protect the gains made to date.
Social equality - continue to expand legal equality for all and protect the gains made to date.
Taxation - continue to chip away at the inequities in our complex tax code and protect the gains made to date.
Federal government - continue to resist abdicating established federal oversight / guidelines / regulations.

All of these will require some compromises to be achieved, given the Congressional (i.e. House) membership for now. Gains have been made at some questionable costs and compromises. Yet they have been made. And Congress is the primary problem in the picture, not Obama.

Realistically, I get it that progress will likely be frustratingly incremental. And you have a good point, it's not LBJ's America in some ways. LBJ knew how to twist arms, make a hard deal. Was pretty blunt in the process. Obama is more a policy debater and tends to look for deals solely on the merits of the result. He himself has acknowledged that. I think the second term will be a different ball game.

Yet in some ways they both share the same approach - the long term gains to be made. I support that, as messy as the process may have to be.

43. This.

"Making "deals" is an integral part of effective governing. You have to deal with the other party in Congress to get anything done. Simplistic, mindless stonewalling, as the Republicans have resolutely practiced recently, is crippling. Compromise isn't always anathema to a liberal agenda. The devil of course is in the details, but compromise in and of itself isn't failure."

60. Republicans deal.

12. Same Song, Second Verse.

At least, now we know. Why would he rankle his own party compromising with the Republicans, when the Republicans are so bat shit crazy and our of touch with both the American people and with reality itself?

24. Video of what Pres Obama actually said in context is in comment #20 n/t

25. From the interview:

"The problem we've got right now is we've got a Republican Congress that is closely aligned with Governor Romney's perspective that is blocking some of the progress that we could be making.

Q. Well, that's exactly what I want to ask you about next. Let's say you win—okay, that's a hypothetical that you would probably buy into. But say you win, but the House Republicans win again also, a likely possibility. How is that any different from what we have now? Why wouldn't a voter look at that and say that's a recipe for stalemate. How would you do anything differently?

Obama: Well, there are a couple things that I think change. No. 1, the American people will have voted. They will have cast a decisive view on how we should move the country forward, and I would hope that the Republican Party, after a fulsome debate, would say to itself, we need to listen to the American people.

I think what is also true is that because of the mechanisms that have been set up, agreed to by Republicans, that have already cut a trillion dollars' worth of spending out of the federal deficit, but now we've got to find an additional trillion—$1.2 trillion, I guess—before the end of the year, means that the Republicans will have to make a very concrete decision about whether they're willing to cooperate on a balanced package.

If they don't, then I'm going to have to look at how we can work around Congress to make sure that middle-class families are protected, but that we're still doing our—meeting our responsibilities when it comes to deficit reduction and investing in the future.

Q. But, I mean, I can certainly see Republicans, led by Speaker Boehner, saying the same thing—the American people voted, we're back in power, too. They're not going to change their position on taxes, on climate change, on immigration. So I mean, if you could—if I could just push a little further on that, how do you see that dynamic changing?

Obama: Well, look, there are some proposals that they put forward that we're not going to compromise on because I believe it would be bad for the country and bad for middle-class families.

I don't think it would be a good idea to pursue an approach that voucherizes Medicare and raises taxes on middle-class families to give wealthy individuals a tax break. So if that's the mandate that Republicans receive, then there's still going to be some serious arguments here in Washington.

But what I'm offering the American people is a balanced approach that the majority agrees with, including a lot of Republicans. And for me to be able to say to the Republicans, the election is over; you no longer need to be focused on trying to beat me; what you need to be focused on and what you should have been focused on from the start is how do we advance the American economy—I'm prepared to make a whole range of compromises, some of which I get criticized from the Democratic Party on, in order to make progress. But we're going to need compromise on your side as well. And the days of viewing compromise as a dirty word need to be over because the American people are tired of it.

That's, I think, a message that will resonate not with every Republican, but I think with a lot of fair-minded Republican legislators who probably feel somewhat discouraged about having served in one of the least productive Congresses in American history.

And I hear—not in public, but in private—that many of them would like to go ahead and get some stuff done because they recognize that our children and our grandchildren have a stake in us being able to get this work done."

on edit - when I read that, I see our president working for our best interests. Period. I don't think that he has some secret agenda or devious intent any tinfoil RW crap like that, which is what you would have to think to worry about the statement.

30. Oh NO. I will NEVER give up :) n/t

50. Now..it's that we're progressive even if our party can't be counted on to be.

Nobody's trying to help Romney here.

Clearly, there's no good reason for Obama to be talking like this now. At this point, he should be all about firing up the base and bringing previous non-voters to the polls.

People who want Social Security compromised aren't going to agree with the Democratic message on anything else, for God's sake. And really, there isn't any such thing as a "center" anymore...the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" voter doesn't exist now.

40. I watched the video, to hear for myself what he actually said.

He said he was prepared to make a whole range of compromises, including ones that he's been criticized for from the Democratic party.

He mentioned that he didn't think voucherizing Medicare was a good idea, nor raising taxes on the middle class. Good to know. He noticeably did not say anything about Social Security. That's what worries me—and a whole lot of other Democrats. That the compromises he's prepared to make will involve changes (that Republicans want) to Social Security.

120. That's what I heard also. Why on earth is he talking about compromising with the worst

Republican Congress ever? Whether they win or lose, their ideas are BAD FOR AMERICA.

Does not agree with that?

I'm prepared to make a whole range of compromises, some of which I get criticized from the Democratic Party on, in order to make progress. But we're going to need compromise on your side as well. And the days of viewing compromise as a dirty word need to be over because the American people are tired of it.

That's, I think, a message that will resonate not with every Republican, but I think with a lot of fair-minded Republican legislators who probably feel somewhat discouraged about having served in one of the least productive Congresses in American history.

Notice he says it will resonate with Republicans, but he gets criticized by Democrats for. So whose opinion does he care more about? Does he think Republicans are going to vote for him?

Compromise IS a dirty word, it was dirty word for the Public Option.

Our only hope really is that he doesn't get a Republican Congress, which he seems to be expecting. This election is about Congress. A Democratic Congress means no compromise with Republicans.

I wish the interviewer would have asked him 'but what if you get a Democratic Congress'?

79. Democrats aren't going to like

He plainly says he is ready to make compromises that democrats aren't going to like. Considering the ones he's made in the past, I'm pretty sure that this means he's going to make ones in the future that I'm not going to like. What part of that did I take out of context?

45. compromise vs. concede...

There's a difference Mr. President.

And I do understand why you are saying what you are saying....

Once bitten....twice shy

but at the Dem convention this should be repeated ad nauseum

"But what I'm offering the American people is a balanced approach that the majority agrees with, including a lot of Republicans. And for me to be able to say to the Republicans, the election is over; you no longer need to be focused on trying to beat me; what you need to be focused on and what you should have been focused on from the start is how do we advance the American economy—I'm prepared to make a whole range of compromises, some of which I get criticized from the Democratic Party on, in order to make progress. But we're going to need compromise on your side as well. And the days of viewing compromise as a dirty word need to be over because the American people are tired of it."

47. It's a moot point, given that we can already assume

That there won't BE any more moderate 'Pugs in Congress after the election. Even now, there's too few of them to matter. And the only "compromise" the others will accept is total surrender(like Clinton always surrendered to them on everything that mattered after 1994).

He really shouldn't be saying these things now, though. You can't talk that way and still expect enthusiasm from the base.

84. Watch the video which texas for obama posted above.

68. jesus, his first four years should have shown by now

that the republicans idea of compromise is getting 90% of their wants and desires and giving 10% of what the Democrats want. That isn't any kind of compromise I want to be a part of. This lesson should have been learned by now. This isn't a good sign.

103. I was on the jury and voted to leave the post up,

not because I thought Manny's statements were accurate, but because this discussion is how a discussion should develop. I followed every thread that was posted at the time the jury was pulled and reached the conclusion that he had misrepresented what Obama had said. The video tape of the conversation made it clear that there were some things that were off the table. Manny never reflected that.

106. "I'm prepared to make a whole range of compromises"

I'm not following how that isn't accurate- are you suggesting that by posting only that quote, he was cherry picking for the purposes of a slanted OP?

The fact that the President says certain things are not on the table does not negate(or even mitigate) the fact he is signaling that he is willing to put SSI and other issues on the block (again) in a way that will "rankle" Democrats and that "Republicans support."

It's time to end the denial. On economics, wars, and the police state, the corporate Third Way agenda direction is exactly the same as the Republicans' direction....rightward. The difference is a matter of the speed with which the changes will be implemented.

73. You might get that dinner after all.

74. My SIL, who voted for Obama told me that Obama has been a mediocre President

because he has compromised with the republicans too often.( that came out when we saw the ad on TV) A republican gets it but Obama doesn't? He doesn't need to pretend, there is no one else to vote for. I expect a lot of republican wishes to be granted in Obamas second term.

75. oh come on Manny

you know he just has to pretend to be a moderate until after the election when he can take that hard left turn and continue turning America into the socialist wasteland shown in that hit movie Obamaland 2016.

You know it is coming, all you gotta do is clap for Tink, and make another donation to Obama. I mean what is more important, paying for rent, or defeating Romney?

Then after the re-election. I mean, after ACORN steals the election again, Obama will nationalize the banks, nationalize healthcare, even nationalize puppies - Petsmart is on the list, and take all the guns, and put a planned parenthood clinic in every city with over 10,000 people in it, and force all the churches to perform gay marriages, and get rid of welfare reform, and tax incomes over $150,000 at 110%, and so on.

Just like Clinton did after he was re-elected in 1996 and walked right over that Republican House that was elected with him (and is predicted to be elected with Obama).

80. The country's moving in the "wrong direction" because people sat on their asses in the midterms.

I know it's cool to blame Obama for everything in Manny's threads, but the level of disconnect from the real world amongst some of the president's critics is just breathtaking. There are two other branches of government, save some of your contempt for them.

93. No country is moving in wrong direction because of DLC, third way and other fake democratic nonsense

The Dem leadership just doesn't get it. The country wants a vast and massive swing away from these foolish policies and back towards something that makes sense. This is not the 'fault' of the republicans, this is the fault of the policies that DEMS THEMSELVES have selected and pushed.

Stop trying to turn everything into an excuse for the dems. They are headed in the wrong direction and the country knows it. If you want enthusiasm, then earn it by LEADING in the right direction and not selling out every chance they get.

GET SOME BACKBONE AND LEAD!!!

Massive military cuts
Higher taxes for the wealthy
Eliminate capital gains, and dividend differential and tax all income the same regardless of source
Raise the social security ceiling

and stop trying to blame teachers and other workers for incompetence and greed of the leadership

96. I'm sorry, but your laundry list is just ridiculous, which is why there'll never be an outright.....

president. None of the shit you listed is going to happen with a divided government, no matter how much you wish for it, and no matter how much Democratic leaders issue spittle laced diatribes on the campaign trail.

As for "backbone", I think this president has shown plenty of it. He's the first sitting president to come out in favor of marriage equality; the first one to actually get HCR done in 70 years; etc.

Didn't Robert Gates already propose military cuts? Hasn't the president proposed higher taxes for the wealthy? You seem to think we elected a king. Pres. Obama can't just wave some magic scepter, and make all your liberal fantasies come true. And as for what the country wants, get back with me in a couple of months, and it'll be a totally different vision.

124. He is not slamming the President. He is asking the President to fight for

issues that are important to the American people. What better time is there to let a candidtate know what the people want than when they are running for office?

Why, eg, is the president once again signaling to the Republicans that he is ready to compromise, BEFORE even putting up a fight? Why is he saying Republicans will like what he is saying, who gives a shit about Republicans, aren't they ones we are supposed to trying to defeat? They have NO GOOD IDEAS.

And why does he say Democrats will criticize him for whatever it is he is willing to compromise on? Do YOU know? Why isn't he more worried about what Democrats think that what Republicans think?

First you fight for what you want, THEN you give up something after YOU set the terms. You do not start out with compromise, that is for after you lay your cards on the table.

134. No, There Is A Pattern Of Constant and Deliberate Misrepresentation, Out of Context SLAMS

on Obama. Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. I've seen this guys posts over and over doing the same dishonest bullshit. You want to defend it, fine, but don't pretend it ain't what it obviously IS.

135. Defend? I am for being always on the offensive.

Show me one good idea Republicans have had that should lead anyone to believe there is any benefit in 'compromising' with them??? I despise, and so does the OP which you would know if you had been here for any length of time, the Republican Party and all their anti-people, pro-Corporate policies.

But here we have a Democratic President saying he thinks they will like the fact that he is willing to start out by compromising with them, and he knows that Democrats won't be happy with him??? What?

I am a Democrat, I don't know you I do know the OP who is also a Democrat. We can start compromising with Republicans AFTER we let them know that their rotten, destructive far right wing policies are unacceptable, damaging, destructive to all living things, and they need to come up with something we CAN consider compromising over before it is even a consideration.

Please explain to me what policies the president is willing to compromise with Republicans over. He doesn't say. Maybe you know???

136. You Can't Defend This Poster Because There is no Defense

And you sure are good at attempting to change the subject from the OP's deliberate out of context bullshit. Yours too for that matter. I know the game your playing and it won't fly, but keep trying, maybe you will convince yourself eventually, but you sure as shit ain't fooling anyone else.

137. I believe you are projecting. I play no games and never have, when it comes to issues

that affect millions of Americans. I agree with the OP, and I thought I was clear about that, that no Democrat should start out any bargaining process with the worst Republican Congress ever, by offering compromises.

This is my opinion, it is a bad tactic to give anything to people who are not, have not and will not be bargaining in good faith.

I notice, since you brought it up, that you have not addressed the actual issue but have resorted to attacking the OP, and now me, personally. So I have no idea of what your opinion of the actual issue is.

139. Keep attacking other DUers, but do not address the issue. Anyone who resorts to personal

attacks does so because they know they are unable to address the actual issue. So I will repeat it.

Republicans have no good ideas with which to bargain. Starting out compromising with one of the worst ever Republican Congresses is not only bad strategy, it is guaranteed to lose on issues that are important to the American people. It is not necessary since a vast majority of the American people do NOT want the privatization of Medicaire, SS or Medicaid.

Republicans need to be attacked for their policies NOT compromised with. There is no logical reason to even think of compromising with anyone whose only goals are to protect the rich at the expense of the working class, the poor, the elderly.

I asked you what Republican ideas might even be considered when making these promised compromises. I cannot think of one and apparently neither can you.

I haven't alerted on your posts as I think they are instructive and people need to see what passes for discussion of important issues among a few on the left.

I no longer expect anything but vitriol and personal attacks, which btw, mean nothing to me so feel free to launch yet another personal attack rather than defend your position, whatever it is.

122. You're right the Republicans do NOT compromise, so why is the President doing so?

Do you hear any Republicans talking about compromise?

First you fight, and yes, I know this is a terrible thing, but you fight for your principles, knowing in the END you might have to compromise, but you do not start out compromising. That is the worst kind of losing strategy in any business.

130. I know. It's one of the things I dislike the most about them.

So, it stands to reason that BEING like them isn't something I aspire to.

'Compromise' really ISN'T a dirty word. It can mean working cooperatively toward a mutual goal. For awhile now Republicans and Democrats have been sold that we want opposite things. That isn't true. We all want the same things. We all want security, opportunity, health care, food on the table and a roof over our heads. We have different ideas on how to go about getting those things. Republican leaders, in an effort to scare their voters into never EVER considering voting for a Democrat, have spent a lot of time and money screaming that Dems want something entirely different...to tear down America, to install a socialist government, blah blah blah. But no, we just want those same things everybody wants.

If everybody wants basically the same thing and have two different ideas about how to get to those things AND getting ANYWHERE depends on some level of cooperation...there is going to be some compromise somewhere. Realistically we aren't getting the House, the Senate AND the White House. Without compromise, exactly what the reporter was saying will happen: We will be stuck with another four years of nothing getting done.

Plus, it may have slipped past some people here...BUT THE MAN IS TRYING TO GET RE-ELECTED. "I refuse to budge one inch to work with the other side." would probably not be a smart thing to say. Right now one of the biggest arguments against the GOP is that they do not cooperate.

133. Kick

142. The TeaPubliKlans and corporatist have had their way for over a generation

and have proven wholly toxic and as such compromise with them is foolhardy on the best of days and the President should be pounding just such a sentiment over the insanity of opening with more "compromise".